While I don't want to veer too off-topic here, I'm not certain what it is you feel is "inappropriate" about Zevran. Or Serendipity for that matter, who, incidentally, wouldn't wear armor as she's a townsperson without military ranking. If memory serves, Zevran wears armor similar to Leliana in DA:O - light leather armor, yes? Which suits both of their fighting styles as rogues. There isn't much in either attire that is specific to the character and their respective traits or behaviors (to which, I don't find either of them to be "inappropriate" in any way).Orian Tabris wrote...
I think that male clothes/armour, should never be revealing unless 1. it suits that character (i.e. an inappropriate character similar to Zevran - though not him, more like Serendipity) 2. it's some sort of berzerker armour, where the wearer cares little for the damage they receive, should be completely bare chested, if at all (this goes for women too, but with appropriate coverage nonetheless).
With females, again, it depends on the character and their background. Rogue/light armour should have the legs, stomach and from the chest (not the parts that should be covered) to the neck, bare because you don't want to get too stuffy zipping across the battle field. Medium armour should have a bare collar, if not, covered up by a thin material. Heavy armour, the torso should be distinct, but otherwise covered. Only sometimes, should it be open chest. As for Massive armour, not so distinct torso, but noticably different from the men's (Origin's massive armour was absolutely wrong).
Clothes for females, would depend on the style or intended occasion. At most, chest/legs open, at least, cover even the neck up (Merrill's romance armour is an excellent example of why you'd cover the neck). Mage clothes shouldn't be restricted to being completely closed, but open chest would be the limit.
Arm coverage is dependant on the apparel itself. But the most protective of armour should never be open arm.
In DA:O, Morrigan has the most character-specific attire - in that her attire matched not only her role as a mage (in the robes category), but also her demeanor. Plus that whole edgy witch thing she had going. The same can be said for Isabela or for Varric. Apparel that fits the characters and their martial class. Varric has a whole lot of chest exposed, which might be tactically unsound, but that suits him. So too, his neck accessory could be enchanted for all we know. When we find outfits to not make RL-sense from a protection point of view, why can't enchantment come into play? In the D&D realm, you could pretty much enchant anything - rings, bracers, necklaces....I had a character with an enchanted tongue stud once. So stacking on extra armor doesn't always make sense if you are protected otherwise.
Also...with regard to female characters and open areas in their armor - "bare because you don't want to get too stuffy zipping across the battle field." Don't male characters get stuffy as well? I would think that it's simply a mortal condition sort of thing. People get warm when running, regardless of gender. Or do men not care about that sort of thing (yet women do)? I know if I'm in a fight and about to scrap, the last thing I care about is whether or not I'm sweating. I should be sweating when I'm walloping a sword on someone.
Retour en haut
